Clueless, is still Blue!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Property taxes are a tax on WEALTH, not income. You don't want income taxed either. You don't want to pay any taxes.

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

I support some taxes, but they need to be lower in the aggregate.

 

As for taxing wealth - a lot of good it does me to have my house's value go up, if selling said house, and moving will incur a prohibitive cost, resulting in a net loss (tax on sales price, %-age to real-estate agent, closing costs, etc). Moreover, if the housing market as a whole is on the up, I can't buy anything with the money I have left. The wealth is on paper only.

 

You are taxed on what you earn.

You are taxed for sitting on property whose value goes up.

If you sell your house you are taxed on the sales price.

And there are probably some hidden taxes on top of that through the financing of the new home.

 

Enslavement.

[Freebird_AL]

But Corporations buy votes, family farmers don't! Still Clueless??????????

Exactly.

 

Now Cat, what a typical liberal thing to do. At least Quote me as I spoke!

 

Bet Michael Moore is your Hero!

[foraker]

So now we're not allowed to comment on an issue unless we've actually been there (a la Iraq)? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to comment on government until you've been to Washington DC....

 

AGRIBUSINESS REAPS BENEFITS OF FEDERAL FARM LAW

 

The federal government’s biggest agricultural subsidy checks are going to the nation’s biggest farmers, according to a new report.

 

More than sixty percent of almost $23 billion in federal farm subsidies provided under the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 went to farm operations that should be big enough to ride out the economy’s up and downs with far less help, charges a report by the Environmental Working Group.

 

Farmers and landowners that make up that top 10 percent received nearly $14 billion in subsidies between 1996 and 1998 - an average of nearly $100,000 each. Some farms collected $1 million or more. The bottom 90 percent got an average of just over $6,900 for the three years. Farmers, investors, and agribusinesses that comprise the top 10 percent of Freedom to Farm subsidy beneficiaries were paid, on average, at least 27 times as much as the 700,000 farm subsidy recipients in the bottom 90 percent.

 

Some states showed an especially high concentration of payments to the largest recipients. In Mississippi, subsidy inequities were the greatest. Ten percent of the participants took in 83 percent of all payments to the state – an average of $217,000 for every recipient over three years. Payments were also highly concentrated in Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina.

 

The study looked at 30 million USDA records for payments totaling $23 billion that cover the first three years of the Freedom to Farm Act. The subsidies included market transition payments, which were capped at $40,000 per farmer or landowner, and commodity price supports for grain and cotton, which were limited to $75,000 per recipient.

 

Last year, Congress doubled those payment caps to $80,000 and $150,000 respectively. In February, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman loosened payment limits on large farms, allowing them to get an even larger share of federal subsidies.

 

Under the Freedom to Farm policy, subsidy recipients are free to plant any crop they wanted, or no crop at all, and still are eligible to receive subsidies. This has allowed some recipients to stop farming entirely, while still retaining full eligibility for Freedom to Farm handouts.

 

Overall, the study concluded that the 1996 law favors large, corporate farms and agribusiness partnerships and is biased against small and medium-sized producers. Farmers that really do need the help are eligible for only minimal subsidies.

 

When the current farm bill expires in 2002, lawmakers should entirely rewrite the formula for farm subsidies. Congress should require farm subsidy recipients to document their financial need before they receive farm subsidy payments, and aid should be targeted to small and medium sized farms and sharply reduced for corporate agribusiness.

[rbw1966]

As for taxing wealth - a lot of good it does me to have my house's value go up, if selling said house, and moving will incur a prohibitive cost, resulting in a net loss (tax on sales price, %-age to real-estate agent, closing costs, etc). Moreover, if the housing market as a whole is on the up, I can't buy anything with the money I have left. The wealth is on paper only.

 

You are taxed on what you earn.

You are taxed for sitting on property whose value goes up.

If you sell your house you are taxed on the sales price.

And there are probably some hidden taxes on top of that through the financing of the new home.

 

Enslavement.

 

First, you dont want a percentage to go to a real estate agent dont use one. Don't want to incur a "prohibitive cost in moving" then don't move. Washington incurs a tax on sales of property? Shit, Oregon doesn't--don't like the tax move in a state that doesn't have it. Housing market on a whole is up? Well thank your government for creating the economic stability enabling the growth in your investment. Pay your taxes and quit whining.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

First, you dont want a percentage to go to a real estate agent dont use one.

 

Easier said that done.

 

Don't want to incur a "prohibitive cost in moving" then don't move.

 

You missed the point. The increase in "wealth" that causes property taxes to rise is on paper only. It is useless if the costs of "cashing in" offset the "increase" in wealth.

 

Washington incurs a tax on sales of property? Shit, Oregon doesn't--don't like the tax move in a state that doesn't have it. Housing market on a whole is up? Well thank your government for creating the economic stability enabling the growth in your investment. Pay your taxes and quit whining.

 

Meanwhile actual spending power goes down the shit-hole.

 

I'd take 0% housing growth if it comes with 0% tax increase any day over no net increase in salary, and rising prices/taxes.

[Freebird_AL]

So now we're not allowed to comment on an issue unless we've actually been there (a la Iraq)? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to comment on government until you've been to Washington DC....

 

Don’t have the slightest Idea on what your commenting on Foraker. Fact is, I more than welcome any comment you may offer on any subject. One can assume this floundering foray of commentary you present has something to do with “AGRIBUSINESS” and not “IRAQ”, Correct?

 

In that sprit I will attempt a reply.

 

The federal government’s biggest agricultural subsidy checks are going to the nation’s biggest farmers, according to a new report.

 

Well wouldn’t that make sense? The more Acreage you farm, the more Acreage you qualify for the plan, the more percentage of products you produce, and the bigger the risk for disaster. Why should Farming be like Welfare, the less you produce in society the more you get. That sounds like another liberal conceptual agenda, at that rate we will all starve.

 

You may say agricultural subsidies are Farm welfare, No more so than HUD, Food Stamps, ADC, The Big Dig, urban Improvement or any other Government Financial Influx.

 

Agricultural Subsidies given to farmers, (which by the way, generate more in tax revenue than they cost) helps build the internal food production inter-structure necessary to provide the abundance that we as Americans enjoy and that so many others in the world can only dream of.

 

Many small and large Farmers rely on the Subsidies to exist during the hard times. Kill Goose that lays the golden egg, and I can promises you big corporate farming will fleece your pockets like an Arab Oil Barren.

[Ducknut]

The Washington Department of Natural Resources has received $8.069 million in subsides since 1995 ( source) . Does that make sense to you? A state government agency getting a federal incentive payment for conservation ($3.6 million) makes some sense because conservation is for a common good, but $4.45 million in crop incentives seems like appropriations augumentation. Check out the numbers this has nothing to do with helping out the family farmer (sources).

[glacier]

Sigh....

 

OK, time to jump into the fray.

 

Family agriculture in America today is typified by increasingly larger acreages farmed by increasingly older people as there is no replacement generation behind them. My parents are in their 70's, my uncle 67. Of the six cousins in my family who grew up on farms, only one is still involved in agriculture. So which of you wants to buy my folks' farm and take over the family business? I don't have the sack for it. Who is going to replace these people, and by proxy, the production capability of the U.S. that we have taken for granted? How long before we are importing grain foods?

 

Let's look at my home county Kimball County, Nebraska - From personal knowledge, the 'corporate' farms listed on the sheet are incorporated family farms - large, monocrop entities. My uncle, somewhere in the upper portion of the list, farms somewhere around 20 square miles of land. My folks, who have what you like to think of as a sterotypical 'family' farm (of only four square miles), and who do not monocrop, are on the list - in the 450's, receiving significantly less than the average annual subsidy of $5,800. The problem with subsidies, as I see it, allows for inefficient, resource-intensive farming - wheat subsidies are among the highest in the program. Whereas small, efficient, producers are not benefitted in the same way.

 

Subsidies can work, as a buffer against price fluctuations, crop disasters, etc. They should not be price supports. Somehow, the market must mature to replace them - I don't have an answer for how. My folks get the same $ per bushel or pound of beef that they got in the 70's. Yet the price of a loaf of bread has tripled.

 

Here's where subsidies aren't needed - real corporations - Cities? The subsidies, like many government programs, have grown from get-you-back-on-your-feet supports to entitlements/welfare. A very real illustration of the slippery slope of such programs, and why Americans tend to be suspicious of such proposals as nationalized healthcare - it may start out well-meaning, but will soon grow to an unwieldy thing that no longer benefits the intended recipients.

 

Regarding taxation. Since property taxes typically go to fund schools, how is taxing my parents farm (and their neighbors), who are at retirement age, with grown children, in any way fair? Even in a rural county such at this one, more people live in town and pay a proportionately miniscule property taxes with repect to the benefit they gain from the property taxes of the industry around them. Why should my parents pay for your kids? taxation without representation?

 

Damn. Time for more scotch.

[rbw1966]

Kas--

 

I'm no rocket scientist (I'm sure thats obvious) and I handled the sales and purchase of two homes without the use of real estate agents. They just want you to think its hard.

 

Glacier--

 

Your parents--as well as everyone in the US--should pay for education because we live in a democarcy. Its incumbent on our society to have an educated populace. You gain from it, your parents gain from it, everyone gains from it. Ergo, everyone should pay for it.

[catbirdseat]

As for taxing wealth - a lot of good it does me to have my house's value go up, if selling said house, and moving will incur a prohibitive cost, resulting in a net loss (tax on sales price, %-age to real-estate agent, closing costs, etc). Moreover, if the housing market as a whole is on the up, I can't buy anything with the money I have left. The wealth is on paper only.

 

You are taxed on what you earn.

You are taxed for sitting on property whose value goes up.

If you sell your house you are taxed on the sales price.

And there are probably some hidden taxes on top of that through the financing of the new home.

 

Enslavement.

My understanding is that if you put all of the proceeds from sale of a house into a home of equal or greater value within six months, you will not be taxed on those proceeds. If on the other hand, you sell and decide to house of lesser value you will pay tax on the difference in value. If you decide to rent for more than six months then you must pay tax on the full amount of the sale.

 

You've never owned a home, have you?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

My understanding is that if you put all of the proceeds from sale of a house into a home of equal or greater value within six months, you will not be taxed on those proceeds. If on the other hand, you sell and decide to house of lesser value you will pay tax on the difference in value. If you decide to rent for more than six months then you must pay tax on the full amount of the sale.

 

You've never owned a home, have you?

 

I do own a home - never moved out (yet).

 

I considered moving to San Diego the summer before last. At the time, my realtor did not mention the caveats that you describe - he just said I would be taxed at something like 2.5% on the sale price. If what you say is true, then I feel a bit better about it. Although if I move to a less-expensive house it will likely be for reasons financial hardship in which case I will miss those taxed dollars on the price difference (better than the full amount).

[Jim]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." [1920]

 

-H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

[Camilo]

This is great! The last few posts have actually been civil AND interesting (probably because they're addressing my question). Thanks for that. One comment:

Why should my parents pay for your kids? taxation without representation?

Your parents pay for other people's kids because they had public schools when they grew up (if they did so in the U.S.). I went to a private high school and college and have absolutely no problem paying taxes for the rest of my life to have a public education system. I think, particularly when talking schools, the "I don't use them, so why should I pay?" argument is pretty damn selfish. Especially when said by old people. When I was in college in L.A. a few years ago, Leisure World in Seal Beach decided to secede from the city. Leisure World is a giant retirement community. They felt that their taxes weren't representing their wants and needs, so they seceded. Their public schools lost a ton of funding because of this. I think that's pretty screwed up, but maybe I'm just a communist

[pope]

Everybody benefits from public education. Do you want these little pukes running around the streets, stealing your car stereo and selling drugs?

 

 

 

Whether or not they actually learn anything, at least the school system keeps them sitting in rows pushing pencils all day so that their parents can go to work and generate some tax revenue.

[AlpineK]

I agree. Either you can spend some tax money on public education, or you can spend a lot more money to private security companies who will keep out all those uneducated unemployable fucks who never got to go to school and so they want to steal all your stuff and burn down your house.

[Freebird_AL]

I agree. Either you can spend some tax money on public education, or you can spend a lot more money to private security companies who will keep out all those uneducated unemployable fucks who never got to go to school and so they want to steal all your stuff and burn down your house.

 

AlpineK, this is your tax money at work. And that is the product of a public education!

 

Brainwashed Liberal Fucks that are taught whatever problems they have it is societies fault, and society owes them a living. All Educated by Liberal dimwit Educators who would be failures themselves if not living off the Tit of the Tax payer.

 

 

 

 

Meet the future Leaders of America, Alpine. Proud Product the American Public Education System!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Squid]

F-A, where can I get a copy of your 'random capital' generator?

 

It's fabulous.

[Freebird_AL]

Actually Squid its no generator, it’s bait! Throw in a few malformed offenders, a little Sanskrit punctuation and a little malfeasant spelling, and you can hook every Grammar Cop on the forum into reading every word of nonsense you script.

 

I thing I got a bite?

[pope]

Jackbird Al, you're freely critical of Liberal Dimwit Educators and seem to imply that it is their fault that the kids of America are so stupid. May I ask who is responsible, in your opinion, for your atrocious spelling/grammar?

 

 

Brainwashed Liberal Fucks that(sic) are taught whatever problems they have it is societies(sic) fault, and society owes them a living.

[Freebird_AL]

Liberal Dimwit Educators of course!